we also need to remember that neither the conservative nor the liberal bases are enough to win an election on a national scale. There has to be some moderate appeal or else you get 35% and an @$$-whuppin....
Traditionally, you're exactly right. But I believe things are changing - due to new media.
Also, we are in the failed-liberal stage of the 30-year cycle (by analogy, it's 1975 and Bush represents Ford or Nixon). That means we have about 5 more years of desperate times, to be followed by a decade of Reagan-like conservatism. Or so the theory says.
"we also need to remember that neither the conservative nor the liberal bases are enough to win an election on a national scale. There has to be some moderate appeal or else you get 35% and an @$$-whuppin...."
Absolutely correct. Us despised moderates are just as important. The choice is clear. Big tent or no tent.
Unfortunately, most of those moderates essentially became the "tax collectors" for the policies of the dominant liberals of the 1960's and 1970's. It wasn't until a principled Republican (Ronald Reagan) came along and articulated a vision and a set of policies that went beyond the apologetic get-along defeatist "moderation". Reagan was supposed to be a right-wing nut -- he turned out to be the most important and consequential president of the 2nd half of the century.
Where Bush has failed, it has been with his compromising on principle -- his walking away from tried and true conservatism: expanding government spending (education bill), not standing up for his judicial appointments, not engaging the Senate and it's extra-constitutional filibusters of judicial appointments, etc.
Moderates are welcomed under the big GOP tent. But we can't look to moderates for our guiding philosophies and principles -- those are sadly lacking.
Moderates would rather have tie or lose out right than be a winner!
The two party system doesn't work.
It will only be a matter of time before two more parties spring out of the current two.